Remarks by the Vice President at Westminster College
Westminster College Historic Gymnasium
Fulton, Missouri

11:35 A.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) That's a nice
Missouri welcome. I'm delighted to be back, back here in Fulton, with
the distinguished members of the Missouri congressional delegation here
today -- and, of course, back in a county known by one of the grandest
names in America -- the Kingdom of Callaway -- I'm told. (Applause.)

And it's a special privilege to be back here at Westminster. I
want to thank Dr. Lamkin not only for his fine introduction today, but
also for his outstanding years of service to the nation.

I bring greetings to one and all from our President, George W.
Bush. (Applause.) As it happens, I visited this school as a candidate
for Vice President, of course, in the fall of 2000. As I recall, it
was in the middle of October. At that point, we had just a few weeks
left in the presidential campaign, or so we thought. (Laughter.) It
worked out all right in the end.

In 2000, we had support all across the state of Missouri, and a
great turnout for the Bush-Cheney ticket on Election Day, and this
year, with your support, I'm confident we'll carry Missouri once again
for the Bush-Cheney ticket. (Applause.)

It's an honor to stand in the place where President Truman and
Winston Churchill stood together in the spring of 1946. I was
interested to learn that Truman and Churchill traveled here from
Washington on the presidential railroad car. The evening before they
arrived, Churchill had five scotches before dinner -- (laughter) -- and
then joined Truman, members of the White House staff, and probably a
few reporters for an all-night poker game. Well, that was a different
era. (Laughter.) And I can tell you that we had a lot quieter time
this morning on Air Force Two.

But in this hall, Churchill delivered what he called the most
important speech of his career, applying the wisdom gained over a
lifetime to the greatest challenge of the age. He warned of a grave
and growing danger, and of the duty of free nations to unite against
the ambitions of the communist empire. He defined the struggle for
what it was -- not merely a rivalry of interests, but a conflict
between those who served an aggressive, power-hungry ideology and those
who believed in human liberty, freedom of conscience, and the dignity
of every life.

In his understanding of that conflict, and in his determination to
see it through to victory, Churchill found a capable and discerning
partner in the man from Missouri, Harry S. Truman. Like his friend,
the former prime minister, President Truman recognized that imperial
communism demanded a comprehensive, long-term response on many fronts.
And he made absolutely clear to the world that American policy would
confront the danger squarely. In a short time, our government created
the architecture of national security that we know today: the
Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the
National Security Council. To defend ourselves and other free peoples,
the United States, joined by Britain, helped to found NATO, and the
President announced the Truman Doctrine to help free nations resist
communist subversion. To build and strengthen our new democracies, our
government led in the reconstruction of Japan, and devoted billions to
European assistance through the Marshall Plan. And when aggression
occurred on the Korean Peninsula, it was President Truman's decision
and America's sacrifice that saved South Korea.

All those early commitments were absolutely essential to victory in
the Cold War, and they helped to produce unprecedented success for the
cause of freedom. And to look back on the pivotal decisions of the
1940s and '50s is to be reminded that certain moments come along in
history when the gravest of threats reveal themselves. And in those
moments our response must be swift, it must be confident, and it must
be right.

Ladies and gentlemen, you and I are living in such a time. In this
new century, facing new dangers, the commitments we make will also be
decisive. The struggle we face today is different from the one
Churchill spoke of 58 years ago. Our enemy no longer takes the form of
a vast empire, but rather a shadowy network of killers, which, joined
by outlaw regimes, would seek to impose its will on free nations by
terror and intimidation. And instead of massive armies, we face deadly
technologies that must be kept out of the hands of terrorists and
outlaw regimes. Yet, in Truman and Churchill, we find models for the
kind of leadership required to defend freedom in our time.

Leaders must speak out and act against threats as they gather, even
when it's difficult. Dangers cannot be wished away. Leaders must be
willing to work with international institutions. As Churchill said
here, leaders must make sure that the United Nations is "a force for
action, and not merely a frothing of words." Leaders must also
maintain military strength capable of operating in different theaters
of action with decisive force -- and be willing to use that power when
necessary. American policy must be clear and consistent in its
purposes. And above all, our leaders must be confident in our nation's
cause, and unwavering until the threat to our people is fully and
finally removed. And today we have such a leader in President George
W. Bush. (Applause.)

The attacks of September 11, 2001 signaled the arrival of an
entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our
own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal -- the possibility
that terrorists could gain chemical, biological, or even nuclear
weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United
States. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief
we saw that day, September 11th gave only the merest glimpse of the
threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations.
If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction -- on their
own or with help from a terror regime -- they will use those weapons
without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of
losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens of thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror. Remembering
what we saw on the morning of 9/11, and knowing the nature of our
enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to
government: We must do everything in our power to protect our people
from terrorist attack, and to keep terrorists from ever acquiring
weapons of mass destruction.

This great and urgent responsibility has required a shift in
national security strategy. For many years prior to 9/11, terror
attacks against Americans were treated as isolated incidents, and
answered -- if at all -- on an ad hoc basis, and rarely in a systematic
way. Even after an attack inside our own country, the 1993 bombing of
the World Trade Center in New York, there was a tendency to treat
terrorist attacks as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily
through law enforcement.

Ramsi Yousef, the main perpetrator of that 1993 attack in New York
was tracked down, arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a
240-year sentence. Yet behind that one man was a growing network of
operatives inside and outside the United States, waging war against our
country.

For us, that war started on 9/11. For them, it started years ago.
After the World Trade Center attack in 1993 came the murders at the
Saudi Arabian National Guard Training Center in Riyadh, in 1995; the
simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in
1998; and the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000.

In 1996, Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, the mastermind of 9/11, first
proposed to bin Laden that they use hijacked airliners to attack
targets in the U.S. In 1996, and again in 1998, Osama bin Laden
declared war on the United States. During this period, thousands of
terrorists were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. And we have
seen the work of terrorists in many attacks since 9/11 -- in Riyadh,
Casablanca, Istanbul, Karbalah, Mombasa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf, Baghdad,
and Madrid. Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless
enemy, it is not enough merely to prosecute a series of crimes. We
have a responsibility to conduct a global campaign against the
terrorist network. (Applause.)

President Bush has recognized this from the beginning. And by the
strategy he has set for our government, we will overcome the threats to
our security, and advance the cause of freedom.

To make our country safer from terrorist attacks, we have created
the Department of Homeland Security -- the largest reorganization of
the federal government since the Truman years. We have brought
together 22 agencies and 180,000 federal employees in one department,
with one focus -- to protect America. We also passed the Patriot Act,
to give law enforcement the tools to catch terrorists inside the United
States. All of these changes are essential. More than two-and-a-half
years have passed now since 9/11, yet it would be a grave mistake to
assume the threat to our country and the world has gone away. As we
saw in Madrid just weeks ago, terrorists are determined to intimidate
free countries, and even to try to influence elections. We have to
assume they will make further attempts inside the United States,
especially in an election year. And every American can be certain:
This government is doing everything we can to prevent another terrorist
attack on America.

Our national security strategy also recognizes the doctrines of
deterrence and containment, which served us well during the Cold War,
are not sufficient to meet the threat of terrorism. It's hard to deter
an enemy that has no territory to defend, no standing army to counter,
no real assets to destroy in order to discourage them from attacking
us. Containment is meaningless in the case of al Qaeda. And neither
containment nor deterrence offers protection against rogue regimes that
develop weapons of mass destruction and are willing to pass along those
weapons secretly to a terrorist on a suicide mission.

Given these realities, there can be no waiting until the danger has
fully materialized. By then it would be too late. And so we are
waging this war in the only way it can be won, by taking the fight
directly to the enemy. (Applause.)

Over the last two-and-a-half years, we -- and our friends and
allies in many countries -- have inflicted heavy losses on al Qaeda's
leadership and foot soldiers, tracking them down and finding them in
hiding places from Pakistan to Indonesia. Those not yet captured or
killed live in fear, and their fears are well founded. We are also
working with governments around the globe to take down the financial
networks that support terror -- the hidden bank accounts, front groups,
and phony charities that have helped them to function.

America is working closely with intelligence services all over the
globe. The best intelligence is necessary -- not just to win the war
on terror, but also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. So we have enhanced our ability to trace dangerous
sources of proliferation, including black-market operations.

The world recently learned of the network led by Mr. A.Q. Khan, the
former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Khan and his
associates sold nuclear technology and know-how to regimes around the
world, including Libya, Iran and North Korea. Thanks to the tireless
work of intelligence officers from the United States, the United
Kingdom, Pakistan, and other nations, the Khan network is now being
dismantled piece by piece. (Applause.)

Since the day our country was attacked, we have also applied the
Bush Doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or
harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will
be held to account. (Applause.)

The first to see this doctrine in action were the Taliban, who
ruled Afghanistan by violence while turning that country into a giant
training camp for terrorists. America and our coalition took down the
regime in a matter of weeks because of our superior technology, and the
unmatched skill of our armed forces, and, above all, because we came
not as conquerors but as liberators. The Taliban are gone from the
scene. The terrorist camps are closed, and the Afghan people are
building a nation that is secure, independent, and free.

In Iraq, the United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a
murderous dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace
and security. Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and
sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror and had built,
possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction. Last spring, Saddam
was the all-powerful dictator of Iraq, controlling the lives and the
future of almost 25 million people. Today, he sits in a prison cell.
(Applause.) The people of Iraq know that the dictator and his sons will
never torment them again. And we can be certain that they will never
again threaten Iraq's neighbors or the United States of America.

From the beginning, America has sought -- and received --
international support for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
the war on terror, we will always seek cooperation from allies around
the world. But as the President has made very clear, there is a
difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting
to the objections of a few. The United States will never seek a
permission slip to defend the security of our country. (Applause.)

We and our coalition partners still face serious challenges in
Afghanistan and Iraq, but our progress has been significant. In
Afghanistan, there is a new constitution. Free elections will be held
later this year. In Iraq, we and the other nations of our coalition
are working closely with the United Nations, and with Iraqis, to
determine the exact form of an interim government that will receive
sovereignty June 30th. The U.N. election supervision team is in Iraq
developing plans for elections. We're working with the U.N. Secretary
General and our coalition partners to return U.N. teams to Iraq to play
an important role there in the months ahead.

In recent weeks, those who fear freedom in Iraq have stepped up
their attempts to create chaos and instability. Groups of radicals,
former regime supporters and foreign terrorists have used car bombs to
murder Iraqi policemen and civilians, including schoolchildren. They
have kidnapped the citizens of many countries who have come to Iraq to
aid in its reconstruction. And they have launched fresh attacks on our
forces. The goal of these killers is clear -- to prevent a successful
transition to self-government, and to drive out the United States and
our partners, and to impose some new form of tyranny on the Iraqi
people. This campaign of terror will fail. (Applause.)

As the President has said, the United States will keep its word to
the people of Iraq. Iraq will be a free and independent country, and
America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. Our coalition
has the means and the will to prevail. We are standing for freedom and
security, and that is a cause we are proud to serve.

Our steady course has not escaped the attention of leaders of other
countries. Three months ago, after initiating talks with America and
Britain -- and five days after the capture of Saddam Hussein -- the
leader of Libya voluntarily committed to disclose and dismantle all of
his weapons of mass destruction programs. And the dismantling of those
programs is underway. All elements of the Libyan nuclear program have
been turned over to the United States. (Applause.)

I do not believe that Colonel Ghadafi just happened to make this
wise decision. (Laughter.) Rather, he was responding to the new
realities of the world. Leaders elsewhere are learning that weapons
of mass destruction do not bring influence, or prestige, or security --
they only invite isolation, and carry other costs. In the post-9/11
world, the United States and our allies are determined: We will not
live at the mercy of terrorists or regimes that could arm them with
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. By whatever means are
necessary, whether diplomatic or military, we will act to protect the
liberty and lives of our people. (Applause.)

These past three years, as our country experienced war and national
emergency, I have watched our Commander-in-Chief make the decisions and
set the strategy. I have seen a man who is calm and deliberate,
comfortable with responsibility, consistent in his objectives, and
resolute in his actions. These times have tested the character of our
nation, and they have tested the character of our nation's leader.
When he makes a commitment, there is no doubt he will follow through.
As a result, America's friends know they can trust -- and America's
enemies know they can fear -- the decisive leadership of the President
of the United States, and I am honored to be part of his team.
(Applause.)

The President's conduct in leading America through a time of
unprecedented danger -- his ability to make decisions and to stand by
them -- is a measure that must be applied to the candidate who now
opposes him in the election of 2004, the Junior Senator from
Massachusetts.

In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy,
he claimed that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among
unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator
Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, "who
can't go out and say this publicly, but, boy, they look at you and say,
'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new
policy,' things like that." End quote.

A week later, a voter in Pennsylvania asked Senator Kerry directly
who these foreign leaders are. He replied, "That's none of your
business." But recently the Senator did drop a hint. The other day on
"Meet the Press," he told Tim Russert, quote, "I mean, you can go to
New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign
leader." (Laughter.) Maybe next time he'll narrow it down for us a
little more. Maybe the name of the restaurant, or the leader.
(Laughter.) In any case, come November, the outcome of the election
will be determined by the voters of the United States, not by unnamed
foreign leaders. (Applause.)

Senator Kerry's record on national security raises some important
questions all by itself. To give you some history, let's begin with
the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein would have been dealt with.
Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the
Persian Gulf War in 1991, in which we liberated Kuwait after a brutal
invasion and occupation. And at the time, the Senator expressed the
view that our international coalition consisted of "shadowy battlefield
allies who barely carry a burden." Yet last year, as we prepared to
liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little
differently. He said then it was a, quote, "strong coalition." Just
eight days ago, Senator Kerry said former President George Bush had
done, quote, "a brilliant job" of building the alliance. Having served
as Secretary of Defense under former President Bush, I appreciate
Senator Kerry's comment. But I find it odd that Senator Kerry is now
commending an alliance he didn't want to build for a purpose he didn't
support.

Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still
defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton
considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in
John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, "Should the
resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve
to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not
held to account for his violation of U.N. resolutions, some future
conflict would have "greater consequence." In 1998, Senator Kerry
indicated his support for regime change in Iraq, with ground troops if
necessary.

Four years later, in the fall of 2002, Senator Kerry wrote in an
op-ed piece that, before America took any action against Iraq,
President Bush should first go to the Congress for support, then go to
the U.N. Security Council to seek enforcement of the resolutions, and
then give an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. President Bush, of course,
did all of those things. And in the congressional vote, Senator Kerry
was among those who favored military action if Saddam Hussein refused
to comply with U.N. demands.

A neutral observer, looking at these examples from Senator Kerry's
record, would assume that the Senator actually supported military
action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us
otherwise. In January this year, he was asked on TV if he was "one of
the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was
voting in October, 2002 only to, quote, "threaten the use of force,"
not actually to use force.

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales,
at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator
Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In
fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of
Kuwait, as well.

Beyond his struggle to maintain a position on Iraq, Senator Kerry's
record raises serious doubts about his understanding of the broader
struggle against terror, of which Iraq is only one front. Less than
two weeks ago, within hours of Osama bin Laden issuing a tape promising
further attacks on America, Senator Kerry suggested that the President
is exaggerating the terrorist threat. As the Senator put it, "Home
base for George Bush, as we saw to the 'nth' degree in the press
conference, is terror. Ask him a question, he's going to terror." End
quote.

Given that comment, it is not surprising that Senator Kerry has yet
to outline any serious plan for winning the war on terror. Instead, he
has questioned whether the war on terror is actually a war at all.
Recently he said, quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In
his view, the war on terror is, again I quote, "not primarily a
military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement,
public diplomacy effort." End quote. As we have seen, however, that
approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting
the American people from terrorists who are quite certain they are at
war with us and are comfortable using that terminology. (Applause.)

Even if we accept Senator Kerry's assertion that law enforcement
and intelligence should be the primary tools in combating terror, his
voting record over the past decade indicates a different set of
priorities. In 1994 -- less than a year after terrorists first struck
the World Trade Center -- Senator Kerry twice proposed cutting a
billion dollars from intelligence funding. When the matter came to the
Senate floor for a vote, it was rejected overwhelmingly by a vote of 75
to 20. The following year, Senator Kerry proposed cutting $1.5 billion
from the intelligence budget over five years. The Senator said his
goal was to eliminate intelligence programs that he considered to be,
"pointless, wasteful, antiquated, or just plain silly." Senator
Kerry's proposed cuts were so deeply irresponsible that he couldn't
find a single co-sponsor for his bill in the Senate.

To his credit, the Senator did vote for the Patriot Act, along with
97 of his fellow senators. Now, however, he supports weakening that
law.

Senator Kerry's record on defense measures is a bit more
consistent. From the beginning of his career in the U.S. Senate 20
years ago, Senator Kerry has repeatedly called for major reductions or
outright cancellations of many of our most important weapons systems.
In 1984, the middle of the Cold War, while we were confronted with an
aggressive, well armed Soviet Union, the Senator issued a white paper
on the defense budget during his first campaign for the Senate. He
called for cutting up to $53 billion from the Reagan defense budget.
And these cuts included the following: The MX missile, cancel; the B-1
bomber, cancel; anti-satellite system, cancel; strategic defense
initiative, cancel; the AH-64 Apache helicopter, canceled; the Patriot
air defense missile system, cancel; the F-15, cancel; the F-14A and
F-14B, cancel; the Phoenix air-to-air missile, cancel; the Sparrow
air-to-air missile, cancel.

At the same time, he proposed reductions in funding for the
Tomahawk cruise missile and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. And at
numerous times, Senator Kerry has voted against funding weapons systems
vital to fighting and winning the war on terror, such as the Blackhawk
helicopter and the Predator drone.

And last September, when the President proposed an $87
billion-dollar supplemental appropriation for troops fighting in Iraq
and Afghanistan, Senator Kerry was asked whether he would support the
President's request. He said, quote, "I don't think any United States
senator is going to abandon our troops. That's irresponsible." End
quote. The legislation provided funding for body armor and other vital
equipment, hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, and spare
parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a
vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted "no."

As a way to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry recently said, quote,
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
(Laughter.) End quote. The Senator is, obviously, free to vote as he
wishes, but he should be held to his own standard. It is irresponsible
to vote against vital support for the United States military.
(Applause.)

When Senator Kerry speaks about the direction of the war on terror,
he often returns to a single theme -- the need for international
cooperation. He has vowed to usher in a golden age of American
diplomacy. He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not
support America's actions in Iraq. Yet to the many nations that have
joined our coalition, Senator Kerry offers only condescension. More
than 30 nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the
Iraqi people, including Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, South
Korea, and Japan. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window
dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the
bribed."

I am aware of no other instance in which a presumptive nominee for
President of the United States has spoken with such disdain of active,
fighting allies of the United States in a time of war. Senator Kerry's
contempt for our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have
withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the
cause of freedom.

In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of a
hundred in the United States Senate -- and fortunately on matters of
national security, he was usually in the minority. But the presidency
is an entirely different proposition. The President always casts the
deciding vote. And the Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample
grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on
vital issues of national security.

The contrast between the candidates this November will be sharper
than it has been in many years. In more than three years as President,
George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own.
America came to know the President after one of the worst days in our
history. He saw America through tragedy. He has taken the fight to
the enemy. And under his leadership, our country has once again led
the armies of liberation -- freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and
making our nation and the world more secure. (Applause.)

All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what
our nation has achieved in an historic time, when so many depended on
us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work
with a President who -- like other Presidents we have known -- has
shown in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of
the great nation he serves.